Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.
E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritypublished opinion
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff used an incorrect pinpoint citation to People v. Dang, citing page 1305 though the published opinion ends at page 1300, and relied on Dang for a privilege proposition that is inapplicable; court identified the pin‑cite and inapposite reliance. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to Show Cause; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff used an incorrect pinpoint citation to People v. Dang, citing page 1305 though the published opinion ends at page 1300, and relied on Dang for a privilege proposition that is inapplicable; court identified the pin‑cite and inapposite reliance. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 14, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to Show Cause
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff used an incorrect pinpoint citation to People v. Dang, citing page 1305 though the published opinion ends at page 1300, and relied on Dang for a privilege proposition that is inapplicable; court identified the pin‑cite and inapposite reliance.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff repeatedly cited a nonexistent case, Boyd v. City of San Diego, 14 Cal.App.4th 954, 959-960 (1993); court found no such published authority and treated it as a fictitious citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re Grand Jury Subpoena as a Ninth Circuit decision (In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Under Seal) (9th Cir. 1985) 774 F.2d 624), but the opinion is a Fourth Circuit case; court noted the misattribution.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff initially cited State of Nevada v. US Dept. of Energy with incorrect reporter information (151 F.3d 1236, 1242); plaintiff later corrected to Nevada v. United States Dep't of Energy, 133 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 1998); court accepted correction.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re County of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2000) as supporting an assertion about federal courts' inherent authority, but the court found no explicit passage in that opinion supporting the claimed proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949) to support the proposition that courts void or enjoin ultra vires public spending; court found Larson only mentions ultra vires and does not support that spending‑enjoining proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff used an incorrect pinpoint citation to People v. Dang, citing page 1305 though the published opinion ends at page 1300, and relied on Dang for a privilege proposition that is inapplicable; court identified the pin‑cite and inapposite reliance. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does Shaw v. City of Portola, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Shaw v. City of Portola, et al. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.